Not surprisingly this is a story narrated by Americans. This angle got no coverage here. The pro gun people are the nuts that fought gun control, mainly coz they wanted greater compensation. They are still sulking.

Gyre - i think you'll find whether we have gun laws or not, you can only protect yourself and not harm anyone that unlawfully enters your property (i.e. only in self defence).As guns aren't as easy to buy here (things like a 28 day cooling off period from purchase to actually taking hold of a gun, MENTAL health checks before you are licensed, controls on the type of weapon & speciality stores verses being able to be bough in Kmarts etc) there are very few house robbers/invaders that would have a gun.

Although, on googling the internet about "in australia can you defend your property";all i got was information about what to do in a Bush fire, which is a WAY more likely an event, than a home invasion.

We do have gun crimes here - especially when it comes to "the underground - bikies, drug lords etc".However, looking at the biggest effect our guns laws had when we had government buy back - was that it reduced suicide with a gun and also the actual numbers of suicides as a consequence - not to mention the killing of spouses & family members. (& no Turtleburb, you cannot have a gun

from stats they say that these laws save 200 Australians a year from a gun related death. We have also had no mass shootings (more than 5 people) since either!

Wow - aren't we all playing like grown ups, it's nice! small doses though please

Em's not wrong though, I like guns - I don't love them whatever anyone may say; I just say that to get them into bed.

If I lived in the States would I*:Have a gun - yes more than oneAssault type weapon - yes more than oneBig magazine - yupHandgun - yupetc.

but I don't and if me being allowed to have guns easily here meant that everyone else did too I think I'll do without - easy to say when it's hypothetical I appreciate that.

*I could apply for a long arm license for bench shooting or hunting here but the rifle would have to be stored in accordance with local ordinances and it would not be that easy, i.e. I would have to be a member of a club attend regularly etc.

you claim 200 people are not dead, because of gun laws. I'd submit that is impossible to prove, and is a guess, at best.They claim drop in suicide by gun, but how about suicide in general? and, when committed by drugs or a car, are some then called "accident"?

I don't buy it. Feel good stats, IMO.

Also, (though it's changing), Oz is a more homogeneous, and generally more polite, society.

I was horrified, at the photos when the big "turn in " happened there, and seeing all those weapons being destroyed.

Long, I know, but I tried to be thorough for anyone that hasn't followed previous discussion here.

I would urge you to look closely at any statistics in Australia.They are almost always faked or misrepresented by the gun banners here.The most widely quoted are simply made up from whole cloth.

Bumble, defense law varies state to state here, and it is changing rapidly.You are allowed to act in defense of others, which is one of the biggest changes.In most states you are only allowed to use deadly force to defend your life or in defense of others, but this can be a little misleading.You are not required to flee and you may resist a robber.The standard here is 'fear for your life', and the case law is changing for the better, but it still needs to be boilerplate and we have a long way to go.

Texas allows you to defend property specifically, and this was recently tested and upheld.At night you are allowed to defend property when your life is in no danger whatsoever.

A huge part of the propaganda here is the fake "assault rifle" scam.Assault rifles have always been legal under federal law, but became highly restricted in 1934 and 1968, which made them extremely costly.I know a number of people that own them, but it is very, very expensive, as they blocked most manufacture and importation.Although I own an assault rifle parts kit, to meet federal law, I have to disable the select fire function that separates assault rifles from any other lightweight, low power, semi-automatic rifle, basically any deer rifle.Most deer rifles would have more power than an assault rifle, which must be low power to be useful.

When the banners talk about "assault rifles" here they are not talking about assault rifles at all.And the fake "assault rifle" ban from 1994 never went out of force for imported weapons.In fact, it continues to be strengthened.But they don't talk about that, as to talk about the real world would be inconvenient.

I am quite baffled that anyone would give up their right to personal defense for any reason.The exploitation of spree killings is especially transparent, as they are so anomalous.I think publicity about them has more to do with their occurrence than anything else, so the banners hold more responsibility than anyone now.But they are not understood at all, and statistics about them are completely meaningless.They do seem related to stress in society.These events are so incredibly rare that putting emphasis on them is wildly disingenuous and misplaced.The rhetoric does not fool most people here.There are a million other threats to children that could be addressed more effectively, but again, looking at reality is inconvenient for an agenda.It is the usual one for people in power.

The greeks even addressed whether the government has the power to do things that people wish for, when it is only wishful thinking.The point of killing school children is to step out of society completely, to reject all law, all standards.How does anyone think that law has authority over anyone doing such a thing, for whatever reason?How can anyone else pretend to understand?

And in the real world, does australia, even though isolated by water, have enough control over ALL boat traffic to control ALL smuggling?Not according to what I hear.

More importantly, rifles are not RMDs, though the president has been describing them as such.The pattern throughout the world has long been to use more effective weapons for this sort of thing, explosives usually, though a significant number of spree killings recently have been done by knife.In china, this might be out of necessity, but in other countries, guns are more than easy to obtain, but not used for this.In some cases, the killers had guns, but did not use them.A knife is just as effective, when distance from a victim is not needed.i would note that a significant number of serial killers, specialists in murder, never use a gun.Distance is the reason a gun is so effective for defense.

Though again inconvenient for the banners, there is a pattern of gun use for murder in gun ban countries, especially near australia.It usually involves zip guns, that is, improvised guns, using shotgun shells.A planned murder may not require many shots of high calibre.If you have a hardware store, then the parts are readily at hand.And I would note, with all the hysteria, that machine guns are very easy to manufacture.It is old, old technology.

In the usa, you are more likely to be eaten by domestic dogs, than killed by an assault rifle.You are more than twice as likely to be beaten to death, than shot by a fake "assault rifle", or a low power, standard rifle in the usa.

And on the dog front, the last time I fired it was to protect myself from two dangerous pit bulls.And I was undergunned.Much easier to stop a man.What will you do in australia?i really don't understand the rationality being used.

Dangerous people will always be dangerous.

People that aren't dangerous don't become a risk because of guns.There is no magic here.

This brings me to the suicide risk.Some people that don't know guns may find them attractive for this.I do not.It's not like hollywood, and the forensic pictures are out there to prove it, including the horrific survivors of suicide attempts.If a gun was instant death, reliably, they wouldn't have captured someone in boston alive after how many shootouts and hundreds of rounds of rifle fire?

The primary method of suicide, certainly for men, is single car accidents.Some argue that for women, poison or drugs, is the usual technique.These ratios apply in highly gun immersed cultures, except where vehicles are rare.Australia has a high availability of vehicles, I think.

The right of an individual to defend themselves and others, is a right all people everywhere are born with, not just a special constitutional right we have in the united states.I can not understand surrendering it, especially given the weak justifications used to pass such egregious laws.I hope you never regret it, but I fear you will.The loss of australia as a democracy would be a great loss to the world, and I would note that australia has been a notably reliable ally of the usa, even when other countries were not.

Turtleburp wrote:Em's not wrong though, I like guns - I don't love them whatever anyone may say; I just say that to get them into bed.

If I lived in the States would I*:Have a gun - yes more than oneAssault type weapon - yes more than oneBig magazine - yupHandgun - yup

If you aren't aware of it, there are shoots in the usa where you are allowed to fire assault rifles (actual assault rifles) and machine guns, and other rental places, if you're inclined to try them.Because these weapons are so highly restricted here, it is the only way most americans ever get to fire them.And when it comes to the rapid fire, big stuff, it's a fast lesson in why they are so impractical for most use.(You pay by the round.)Fun though, and impressive.

Many of us will be happy to let you try out any of our run of the mill weapons.

The attempt here to vilify the mentally ill is the most dangerous part of the current campaign.It will resonate for many years.Obama has announced he will sidestep the law and attempt to override current law on medical treatment.

This is done on a routine basis by the atf on other gun restrictions.That is why we currently have hundreds of thousands of gun laws here.And it is why ignorance of the law has backfired so badly for the banners.All I have been doing is educating the news media locally and anti-defense spokespersons here about current law.They never seem to know how it works already.The law is incredibly restrictive here now, and doesn't need to be that way to be reasonable.

Meanwhile, they are making damn sure that anyone needing psychological treatment of any kind will avoid it.Obama wants to confirm that no one can trust the medical community.He intends to break all medical privacy.

He verifies all paranoia.

Psychology isn't magic, and it can't predict the future.However, I can predict this will have harsh real consequences.

I find it significant that the American Revolution is being glossed over in School history classes. Why do you suppose that is? After all... a good education is so important that the federal government has taken it upon itself to make sure that "no child shall be left behind". When my daughter took her GED tests she told me that there was not one single question about the Revolutionary war. Surely there has been a mistake and our government will swiftly address this gross error. So perhaps, while we wait for congress to act, we should review this part of American history a little bit for ourselves.

Let's see... where to begin? The stamp act... The quartering of troops in The homes of colonists... The Boston Tea Party... The midnight ride of Paul Revere... The Battles of Lexington and Concord... Ah yes the opening battle of the War for Indpendence, that seems a good place to start. And a good place to get down to the heart of the matter at hand.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord was the first military engagement of the American Revolutionary War. They were fought on April 19, 1775.

After numerous abuses, and not the least of which was not having any representation in Parliment, many Colonists began to feel a need to protect themselves from their King.

The colonists had been forming militias of various sorts since the 17th century, at first primarily for defense against local native attacks. These forces were also mustered to action in the French and Indian War in the 1750s and 1760s. They were generally local militias, made up of all men 17 and older who were generally expected to supply their own muskets and ammunition. Nominally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. When the political situation began to deteriorate, in particular when General Thomas Gage, the military governor of Massachusetts and commander-in-chief of the roughly 3,000 British military forces garrisoned in Boston, effectively dissolved the Provincial government under the terms of the Massachusetts Government Act, these existing connections were employed by the colonists under the Massachusetts Provincial Congress for the purpose of resistance to the perceived military threat.

Gage had received instructions to disarm the rebels, who were known to have hidden weapons in Concord, among other locations, and to imprison the rebellion's leaders, especially Samuel Adams and John Hancock. On the night of April 18th Gage sent about 700 British regulars accros the Boston Harbor to avoid avoid detection (by not marching through Boston) in the hope of making a surprise attack on Concord. Upon reaching Lexington on the morning of the 19th they found about 80 Lexington militiamen Standing in ranks on the village common. During an attempt to disarm the colonist a shot was fired. It is not known who fired the first shot or even if it might have been an accidental discharge. Eight Massachusetts men were killed and ten were wounded; only one British soldier of the 10th Foot was wounded. The British then marched on to concord sending an advance guard of about 95 troops who found only four cannon and little else, since the colonists had known that they were coming and had moved everything else to other towns. They destroyed the trunions and burned the carriages so that the cannon could not be mounted. The militia had withdrawn to the hills where they could watch the movemet of the British troops down in Concord knowing that there was little to find. While they watched the actions in the town below they were joined by more and more militia ariving from the surroundin countryside. As the Red Coats were leaving Concord the militia advanced and a skirmish was fought at the old North Bridge. The british troops were were engaged, fired upon and sniped at all along the road back to Boston until they were rescued by a full brigade that was sent to as re-enforcements about 2:30 in the afternoon.

There you have it a brief overview of the opening battle of the American Revolution. The important thing here is central to the discussion of the right to keep and bear arms:

1 - the militia consisted of every man over 17.2 - they were expected to supply their own muskets (the military assault rifle of the day) and ammunition3 - These arms, including cannon (the heaviest and most powerful weapons of the time) were intended to be used against their own government, being at the time King George and the British Parliment.

Make no mistake about it our government is attemting to disarm us. Stalin did it in Russia, Hitler did it in Germany and King Geaorge tried to do it to the Colonists. What do you really think Obama is trying to do?

Could it be that our congress, president, and the people in power don't really want us to know how the United States came to be in the first place?

I want to remind everyone with a carry permit to stay on top of their renewal date.I don't know if it's the same anywhere else, but here you can get duplicate cards, but you have to order them when you get your card.Nominal charge.

It's worth exploring your training options.I took some advanced training from the cop in charge of the police academy here.Very good.I improved tremendously in a short time.He is revamping a lot of my combat maneuvers too.

He tells me there are a LOT more defense shootings here than people suspect.

Brian Sandoval, our Governor here in Nevada vetoed SB221 . In part it would have required background checks for every gun transaction, including "lending" a gun to someone. The word lend was in the wording. The way myself and most other law abiding citizens understand it....for example my wife and I went off-roading and I took my Ruger Mark III that is registered in my name. We stop so I could shoot it and I gave it to my wife to shoot.....BACKGROUND CHECK? The act of giving someone a gun in your party would require a background check.

My cats are cuter than your grandkids!

"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." Ronald Reagan